Again, I think because of the limits of terminology and the forum, it seems like we're arguing past each other. But we probably agree on more than we disagree o

Again, I think because of the limits of terminology and the forum, it seems like we're arguing past each other. But we probably agree on more than we disagree on. "Judiciously used", by the meaning of the words, limits what it describes to cases where it is in fact the right set of decisions. The injudicious cases are the ones I'm interested in picking out. If you have a pest or pathogen problem that is recurring, applying RoundUp or some other chemical combatant is not as good as introducing a rotation or a biological competitor or predator. If you're soil is consistently deficient in certain elements--the overall better strategy is to introduce organic matter that feeds life in the soil (rotations, compost, etc.), rather than applying a factory-made fertilizer. The factory input just isn't as sustainable season-to-season as feeding biological matter into the soil. There are also several perspectives from which to measure outcomes, that may have conflicting interpretations--flavor, nutrition, ecological impact, short-term vs long-term economics, etc. So to the point that Denmark encourages good long-term economics, ecological impact, flavor, and nutrition--it's a good, sustainable project.